The Medieval Inquisition: Scale-free Networks and the Suppression of Heresy

Qualitative evidence suggests that heresy within the medieval Catholic Church had many of the characteristics of a scale-free network. From the perspective of the Church, heresy can be seen as a virus. The virus persisted for long periods of time, breaking out again even when the Church believed it to have been eradicated. A principal mechanism of heresy was through a small number of individuals with very large numbers of social contacts. Initial attempts by the Inquisition to suppress the virus by general persecution, or even mass slaughtering, of populations thought to harbour the "disease" failed. Gradually, however, the Inquisition learned about the nature of the social networks by which heresy both spread and persisted. Eventually, a policy of targeting key individuals was implemented, which proved to be much more successful.Comment: 12 page

Remarks on the Letter of the Patriarch Theophylact to Tsar Peter in the Context of Certain Byzantine and Slavic Anti-heretic Texts

Translated by Marek MajerThe Letter of patriarch Theophylact to tsar Peter is the oldest, but seemingly not the most informative Greek source for the history of Bogomilism. It is in essence a standard document, a typical product of the patriarch’s chancery; it is not conceived as an in-depth investigation into the theological minutiae pertaining to the cosmogony, dogmas and social doctrines of the heretics and the orthodox Church, but rather as a practical tutorial on how to thwart any given neo-Manichaean dualist heresy. It brings to light the fact that Bogomilism, the ‘new’ heresy was treated as an ‘old’ one – as a ‘reactivation’ of earlier gnostic-dualist and neo-Manichaean movements. The letter also features a peculiar innovative feature, though not one directly related to the Bogomil heresy itself: the degree of commitment to preaching the dogmas of the heresy is used for differentiating the situation of the followers. The analysis of the Letter of patriarch Theophylact to tsar Peter raises the more general issue concerning the detailed study of Byzantine and Slavic liturgical texts as a source of information on neo-Manichaean doctrines

Autoproscoptae, Bogomils and Messalians in the 14th Century Bulgaria

This paper discusses the use of the names of heresies: bogomilism, messalianism and the heresy of autoproscoptae in 14th century Bulgarian sources. The author underlines that the names of bogomilism and messalianism do not always refer to dualism. Two wider unknown examples of such use of the name “messalinism” are recalled. In the Pseudo-Zonaras Nomocanon (CIAI 1160), the name “messalianism” is treated as being equal to the “heresy of autoproscoptae”. In the Rule for hermits, messalians are presented not as heretics, but as monks disregarding their rules

Harton\u27s Orthodoxy and heresy in early Christian contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer thesis (Book Review)

A review of Harton, P. A. (Ed.). (2015). Orthodoxy and heresy in early Christian contexts: Reconsidering the Bauer thesis. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. 288 pp. $32.00. ISBN 978161097504

Representing Heresy in Early Modern France

Heresy is a fluid concept, not easy to define or pinpoint, and certainly one that defies religious and political boundaries. Heresy could be said to be a cultural construct manufactured by competing narratives. The articles in this volume examine the varieties of perceptions and representations of heresy in early modern France. In so doing, they reveal that such perceptions and representations have had more of an impact on our understanding of heresy than heresy itself. This, in turn, provides us with new and stimulating viewpoints on how heresy was recognized and depicted at the intersections of faith, art, gender, poetry, history, and politics.https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1294/thumbnail.jp

Heresy in Architecture; Is it Real?

Most people who Salafiism holder still assume that what they do should be consist of with prophet Muhammad done, so they always being carefully whenever doing something, because they are extremely afraid if they are doing something not consist of with what Muhammad done, they assume that is bid’ah (heresy) deed. They belief all heresy deviated from Islamic law. So even though constructing some building they always copy what Muhammad done completely. It means they don’t know yet the meaning of heresy is. In accordance with what prophet said, heresy is doing something which is relate with ibadah mahdhoh which is not be done by Prophet Muhammad. Architecture is cultural product so that it is not relate with ibadah. Other ways there is not relation with heresy. So there is no heresy in Architecture.

Perceptions of the origins and causes of heresy in medieval heresiology

This thesis examines perceptions of the origins and causes of heresy in the polemical literature of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries. It touches on two areas of academic interest. The first is the medieval concept of heresy, a subject which has received little attention from either historians or theologians. The second is the question of the historical origins of heresy, a problem which has received a considerable amount of attention. The thesis has two aims: one is to analyse the concept of heresy itself, the other is to set this concept within the context of the debate about the historical origins of heresy in the medieval west by examining what medieval polemicists themselves considered to be the origins of heresy. Ch. 1 examines the formal definitions of heresy contained in polemical texts and other relevant literature, showing how the definitions moved away from concentrating on theological error, and thus 'heresy', towards contumacy and the authority of the Church, and thus the 'heretic'. Ch. 2 outlines the basic characteristics of the heretic and the ways in which these were conceived and discussed by orthodox contemporaries. Ch. 3 considers the causes of heresy as perceived by polemicists, setting these against the present-day debate, and argues that polemicists' analysis of the origins and causes of heresy was fundamentally incorrect. Ch. 4 analyses polemicists' accounts of the origins of particular heretical sects, highlighting the differences in approach between various polemicists. Ch. 5 examines the mindset which provides the underlying unity to these different approaches and reconsiders the concept of heresy in the light of the evidence presented in Ch. 4. The central argument of this thesis is that polemicists' analysis of the origins and causes of heresy was distorted by their concept of 'the heretic'. First, their concept of heresy focused exclusively on the heretic as a particular kind of person. This separated heretics from merely sinful people and 'demonized' them to an extent which meant that they were deemed to have a supernatural nature transcending their earthly existence - a nature which was irredeemably evil, utterly inimical to the true Church and ultimately created and sustained by the Devil. Polemicists viewed this nature as uniting not only all medieval heretics, but all heretics throughout time. The heretics with which they were dealing were seen as the descendants of the first heretic - universally agreed to be Simon Magus - through a diabolical succession which mirrored the Church's apostolic succession. This sense of the 'otherness' of the heretic reflects the Augustinian civitas dei/diaboli typology - translated by medieval polemicists into a two-churches typology - which was the foundation of the conceptual framework within which the medieval concept of heresy operated. The thesis concludes that, almost without exception, polemicists - the very people who were disseminating information to be used in the intellectual fight against heresy - fundamentally misunderstood the origins and causes of heresy. The two-churches typology and the diabolical archetype to which all heretics were subsumed ensured that the intellectual fight against heresy was directed away from the Church itself, and towards a many-headed heretical demon which did not in reality exist

5. The Church and Heresy

In the centuries which followed its recognition by the Roman Empire, the Church had gradually developed a body of doctrine by which to interpret its faith and answer its critics. Once that doctrine was firmly established, those Christians who held contrary beliefs could be branded as heretics. In spite of this, the Western Church was never completely without its critics: Arians, Donatists, and many others. As soon as one doctrine was approved, questions were raised about some other aspect of the faith. The very interpretation of life which the Church offered, with its division into the secular and heavenly levels, seemed to foster this almost continual questioning and criticism. [excerpt